From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PznAk-00079r-4J for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:37:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 90D421C077; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570141C059 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (ip-94-112-147-25.net.upcbroadband.cz [94.112.147.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: scarabeus) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DEB61B40A1 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:37:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4D808495.5070801@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:36:21 +0100 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Tom=E1=9A_Chv=E1tal?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: emboss.eclass as replacement for embassy.eclass References: <4D7F1633.1080104@gentoo.org> <4D7FD134.4060606@gentoo.org> <4D7FD947.8050203@gentoo.org> <4D805D2C.4020206@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4D805D2C.4020206@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 3dafd0b982da46da7ac5995b15581922 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dne 16.3.2011 07:48, justin napsal(a): > On 15/03/11 22:25, Tom=E1=9A Chv=E1tal wrote: >> >> i am seriously hurt by $(use_enable amd64 64) >=20 > Where is the problem? The purpose of the eclass is not to repeat the > same code 20 times. Why can't this be here? >=20 Problem is in amd64, what if we get to 64b mips OR ppc64 or any other non-32bit arch? Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2AhJUACgkQHB6c3gNBRYeo8gCgzgj2xDGjaA9ym2SmIsYmpn2W bIgAn3GvJ7SjwAGg+V91YZwG4PK+2q/u =3D8GNY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----